Alamdar v MIMA

[2001] FCA 1244

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Alamdar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1244

MOHAMMAD JARAD ALAMDAR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

W 49 OF 2001

EMMETT J
30 JULY 2001
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 49 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMAD JARAD ALAMDAR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 JULY 2001
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

1.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 49 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MOHAMMAD JARAD ALAMDAR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	30 JULY 2001
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Iran.  He arrived in Australia in November 2000 and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 11 November 2000.  On 11 December 2000 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”), the respondent to the present proceeding, decided to refuse the application for a protection visa.  An application for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was lodged on 18 December 2000.  On 13 February 2001 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.  By application filed on 23 February 2001 the applicant now seeks an order of review by this Court of the decision of the Tribunal.

2. The applicant was interviewed shortly after his arrival in Australia because he did not have a passport.  He claimed that he had travelled to Australia via Dubai and Malaysia and Indonesia and said that he had used a false Turkish passport that he had obtained in Dubai.  When asked why he had left Iran, the applicant said that he and a group of friends had begun making pornographic films about seven months ago.  He said that he had acted in one of the films and his face was identifiable.  He had been paid the equivalent of about $1,200.00 per film.  He said that in early August 2000 the police had arrested one of the people involved in making the films and had seized video equipment, photographs and editing equipment.

3. In a submission made on behalf of the applicant by his representatives it was argued that, although actors involved in making pornographic films might not constitute a particular social group in Iran for the purpose of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the Refugee Protocol (“the Convention”), those involved in the arts in a more general sense did so.  The submission was made that the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his membership of the particular social group of artists.

4. The applicant claimed that the Islamic government in Iran had destroyed the economy and that young people were taking refuge in alcohol…